Voting With One’s Pocketbook

Reading in the Tribune earlier today about the CTA’s impending crisis, I wondered again why in a supposed democracy the preferences of the people are so seldom heeded, or even sought out. The CTA faces the typical dilemma of underfunded public transit systems: to raise fares, or to cut back service. While one might perhaps come across a TV news poll on the question, it is never put to a public vote. Now though I might peer a bit more intently and prick up my ears at the climax of such an exercise, I wouldn’t suggest that public policy be decided by polling. But I’ve been pondering a process that might both appease a demand for more public participation and, strangely enough, raise the level of political debate.

Before I describe this process, let me first suggest a transport-specific solution. The transport system of the U.S. at present is a mess of bureaucacy and an exercise in hypocrisy. Urban residents do vote with their pocketbooks in one way: each must choose how to get around, weighing costs and benefits. They vote by making long-term decisions about vehicle ownership and residential location, and, for those with several options for conveyance, by making mode choices on a day-to-day and even hour-by-hour basis. But one problem is the unavailability of service level options for public transit users. Most transit systems have a standard fare, most often with an extra fee for transfers (paying more for having to suffer an inconvenience!) and sometimes a graduated fare structure based on distance, usually for commuter rail systems only. Public transit, being a public service, must adhere or at least appear to adhere to an “egalitarian” standard. It would be one thing if this equal standard were applied to all. But those with the wherewithal for and inclination to an automotive lifestyle (the vast majority, in case you haven’t noticed), by ignoring transit, cancel out the merits of such a system. The hypocrisy of public transit is that it claims to serve all but usually only serves those who have no choice.

Ideas are floating around in libertarian circles to make certain highway lanes “premium” lanes, that is, speedy toll lanes. Whatever we make of this, we ought to institute (revive?) multiple levels of service of public transit so that one can pay more for better service on a case-by-case basis. I’ll leave the logistics for later, but the idea is not to create distinctions of class (these already exist), or to exacerbate them (quite the contrary), but simply to increase transit ridership and lessen car dependency by creating a service that is superior to the automotive-asphalt complex. Here, at least the libertarian critique of government-provided services is spot on. I would even wish that one could donate funds to improve one’s own pet transit route. . . Unfortunately this proposal would be difficult under the present dispensation. But what if government were actually accountable?

Though democracy of course requires an educated populace--as yet unnattained in these here United States--wouldn’t it be neat if we could determine how our tax money is spent? I must hasten to assure the guardians of public order that this is no proposal to replace representative democracy with a direct version. In a mass society, deliberation by the elect is certainly to be preferred to plebiscites. But the genius of this proposal, if I may, is that the process would be open to all, but those who bother to sit down to mull over the budget would be forced to come to grips with the scheme of apportionments. Perhaps the “libertarians” might recognize that the American inclination toward the internal combustion engine has been, how shall we say, helped along by various, what do you call them—subsidies! Yes, dear, the private lifestyle is publicly funded. Go tell grandpa.